Ems-tech Inc. v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Mirna” and The Other Ships or Vessels Named in Schedule “A” Annexed Hereto

HCAJ 3/2024

[2024] HKCFI 1793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO 3 OF 2024

____________________

Admiralty Action in rem against: The ship or vessel “MIRNA” (IMO No 9291925)
(Republic of Palau’s flag) and other ships or vessels named in Schedule “A” annexed hereto

____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1.I am satisfied that on the materials before the Court this application for sale pendente lite should be granted.

2.First, the papers have been properly served on the Defendant, who has not appeared this morning to resist this application.

3.Second, I bear in mind the applicable principles set out in The Brightoil Glory [2019] HKCA 561, [12].

4.Third, as the arresting party the Plaintiff is entitled to sufficient security (estimate by the Plaintiff at USD 3.28 million) to cover the amount of its claim with interest and costs on the basis of its reasonably arguable best case: see The Hua Tian Long [2008] 4 HKLRD 745, [8]. There is no security provided by the Defendant.

5.Fourth, the Vessel (MV Mirna) is a wasting asset. Its maintenance whilst under arrest has cost the Plaintiff about HKD 1 million so far, and such cost is continuing at over HK$ 10,000 every day.

6.Fifth, the Vessel was built in 2003. It has a deadweight tonnage of 2,863. It is thus a relatively old and small vessel. The Plaintiff suggests that the Vessel’s value is unlikely to exceed a few million in USD. It should be noted that the Vessel is unfit to sail unless the deficiencies identified by the Marine Department have been remedied. It makes no economic sense to continue to keep the Vessel under arrest at considerable cost.

7.Sixth, there appears to be no other interested parties.

8.In the premises, I am satisfied that there are good reasons and it is desirable to have the Vessel sold forthwith.

Mr Edward Alder, instructed by Haiwen & Partners LLP, for Plaintiff

Defendant did not appear